Author Topic: Witness #8, Thread II  (Read 9875 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Evil Chinchilla

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 157
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness #8, Thread II
« Reply #15 on: April 05, 2013, 11:20:00 AM »
ABC News, 4/3/12, 2:04-11
Quote
He was walking fast when he say, that this man behind him again. He come and say this dude look like he about to do something to him.
This one is also spliced into a narrative, with no information on when it was recorded. It's a watered down version of 'look like he about to beat him' (3:00 in the 5 minute ABC clip).

Interesting how DeeDee says that so freely to Crump on 3/19 and to Gutman at some point prior to his 4/3 airdate, but then she dodges like crazy when BDLR asks her to confirm this point under oath on 4/2:
Quote
BDLR:  OK. Alright. Uh, did Trayvon ever say he hit the guy?

Dee Dee: [pause] N...no.

BDLR:  Did he ever say he was going to go hit the guy?

Dee Dee:  No.

BDLR:  Did Trayvon ever say, ‘The guy’s coming at me… he’s going to hit me?”

Dee Dee: [pause, faint voice can be heard in background, Dee Dee drops voice] …yeah… you could say that.

BDLR:  Now I don’t want you to guess.  Did he ever say that?

Dee Dee:  How he said it? He did say… [sounds confused as though seeking guidance]…

BDLR:  No, I want… do you understand? Did he say that or not? If he didn’t say it, that’s alright… I, I…

Dee Dee:  He got… the man got…

BDLR:  Do you understand, I’m not trying to get you to say anything…..

Dee Dee:  He got problems… like he crazy.

BDLR:  Trayvon told you that…

Dee Dee:  Yeah, the man looking crazy.

BDLR:  OK.

Dee Dee:  And look at him crazy.

BDLR:  When did Trayvon tell you that?

Dee Dee:  When he was walking.

BDLR:  OK, but you didn’t mention that earlier. That’s why I ask you that.

Dee Dee: Yeah… walking home…

BDLR:  OK.

Dee Dee:  …to that house.

BDLR:  Right…

Dee Dee:  And right before he say he’s going to run.

BDLR:  And he’s saying the guy looks what?

Dee Dee:  Crazy…

BDLR:  And did you say “what do you mean…”

Dee Dee:  …and creepy.

BDLR:  And did you say, “What do you mean by that?”

Dee Dee:  I said... because he said this dude is like watching him… like watch…

BDLR:  OK, so that’s what he meant, the guy keeps watching him.

Dee Dee:  Yeah.
[BBM]

Given that she's stated twice that she heard TM say GZ was following him again and then heard TM say GZ "look like he about to do something to him" or "look like he about to beat him," the answer to BDLR's "Did Trayvon ever say, ‘The guy’s coming at me… he’s going to hit me?'" should have been an easy "Yes."

(Okay, since it's DeeDee, at least an easy affirmative "Mmmm-hmmm.")

The fact that she goes all evasive, pauses, seems to be asking someone in the room for guidance, and then avoids directly answering the question while she's under oath speaks volumes as to whether she has ANY credibility.

Instead, she dodges by saying (through a series of responses) that TM said "He got problems… like he crazy […] the man looking crazy. [...] And look at him crazy [...] and creepy."

And more importantly, when BDLR gets DeeDee to elaborate by asking "And did you say, 'What do you mean by that?'she not only responds that "he said this dude is like watching him"-- she reconfirms it by responding to BDLR's direct "so that’s what he meant, the guy keeps watching him" with "Yeah".

Backing down on this point under oath-- going from claiming GZ looked like violence was imminent to GZ only kept watching him-- is pretty damaging, IMO.

And especially so, when this shift is coupled with the ABC "5m clip" showing Crump changing GZ's allegedly "heard by DeeDee" response to TM's "Why are you following me for?" from "What are you talking about?"-- plausibly indicating a denial of following-- to "What you doing around here?"-- indicating aggression and belief that "(black) TM doesn't belong in (white) RTL".

And just who else was that in the room with her when she was fumbling after that question?

BDLR is now claiming that Sybrina Fulton-- "for some reason"-- was sitting next to her during that 4/2 statement, but was Natalie Jackson or anyone else from Team Crump also sitting there?

How much BS surrounding this girl's "connects all the dots" testimony does it take to make it inadmissable as evidence?

Or is it better to risk letting her take the stand and dismantle her tangled web in front of a jury? That would work with a completely unbiased jury, but good luck finding one of those.

Offline realitycheck

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness #8, Thread II
« Reply #16 on: May 11, 2013, 08:52:59 PM »
I know we don't normally engage in speculation on this site BUT I was curious about the possible ramifications of interesting information from #8. ( I hope I'm not violating the rules with this.)

I believe it was reported that a "friend" helped #8 write the letter to Ms. Fulton. Curiously, it was also reported that #8 did not know her "friend's" last name.

In testimony accidentally(?) I believe the name Francine was mentioned by West. IF Francine happens to be Natalie Jackson's mother Francis Oliver what would the legal ramifications be?

Offline DebFrmHell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 954
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness #8, Thread II
« Reply #17 on: May 11, 2013, 09:10:45 PM »
Your comment will probably get deleted because you named the person that was stricken from the record.  Jeralyn doesn't play that way.

I understand your curiosity.  However there is no proof of anything along those lines currently in evidence.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness #8, Thread II
« Reply #18 on: May 11, 2013, 11:45:01 PM »
If [Witness 8's friend who helped her write the statement] happens to be Natalie Jackson's mother [] what would the legal ramifications be?

That circumstance would potentially call the credibility of Witness 8's testimony into further question, in the eyes of the jury.  It might provide probable cause to investigate witness tampering.  There is nothing inherently wrong with having an affiliated lawyer's mother help a witness.  Any legal ramifications revolve around witness credibility and witness tampering.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness #8, Thread II
« Reply #19 on: May 12, 2013, 08:08:16 AM »

The phrase 'witness tampering' gets tossed around a bit. It may be useful to note how it is defined by Fla. Stat. § 914.22.

Quote
(1) A person who knowingly uses intimidation or physical force, or threatens another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, or offers pecuniary benefit or gain to another person, with intent to cause or induce any person to:
(a) Withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official investigation or official proceeding;
(b) Alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the integrity or availability of the object for use in an official investigation or official proceeding;
(c) Evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness, or to produce a record, document, or other object, in an official investigation or an official proceeding;
(d) Be absent from an official proceeding to which such person has been summoned by legal process;
(e) Hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of information relating to the commission or possible commission of an offense or a violation of a condition of probation, parole, or release pending a judicial proceeding; or
(f) Testify untruthfully in an official investigation or an official proceeding,

commits the crime of tampering with a witness, victim, or informant.

Offline DebFrmHell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 954
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness #8, Thread II
« Reply #20 on: May 12, 2013, 09:48:54 AM »
I would think that E and F apply to W8.

First off, they had to go look for her.  She didn't get there on her own.  IMO, she didn't want to give any statement.

She said that SF sitting next to her, crying, during her sworn statement was somewhat influential/intimidating. 

What I don't understand is why BDLR when naming himself and the SAO officers didn't he make mention of Sybrina Fulton and perhaps other members of the family or lawyers in that room.

And then there is the issue of the letter.  Just something else that Prosecutors withheld from the Defense possibly/probably for months. 

The meeting in August of 2012 was apparently more forthcoming yet the Defense still has not much of anything in regards to that meeting.  It took a Motion to Compel for the Prosecution to admit there were no records of any hospitalization or ER trip. 

IIRC, W8 was in Jacksonville for 2 days, Aug 2 and 3.  I doubt they took her to Disneyworld.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness #8, Thread II
« Reply #21 on: May 15, 2013, 02:46:56 PM »
I would think that E and F apply to W8.

W-8 didn't actually lie to BDLR. He is conceding that she did rather than acknowledge his own sloppiness.

I assume the Crump interview wouldn't be considered 'official'.

As for (e), W-8's interview took place on the day it was scheduled. De minimis non curat lex.

What motive would Martin/Fulton/Crump have to delay W-8's statement? I think the statement was to their advantage, since the prosecutors may have been unwilling to move ahead without it.

The main point I wanted to make, is that not all influencing of a witness rises to the level of 'tampering'. The statute specificies three forms of influence that do so, and there must be 'intent'. I don't know of any evidence for any of the three at this point. Of course that doesn't mean that investigation isn't called for.

Quote
IMO, she didn't want to give any statement.

Speculation.

Quote
She said that SF sitting next to her, crying, during her sworn statement was somewhat influential/intimidating.

According to Defendant's Motion For Sanctions, 'The reason Witness 8 gave for lying to Mr. Crump was that Trayvon Martin's mother, Sybrina Fulton, was present during the interview,' and 'Witness 8 stated that she told Mr. de la Rionda the same lie because during Mr. de la Rionda's sworn interview of Witness 8, for unknown reasons, Ms. Sybrina Fulton was sitting next to her' (p. 4).

There is nothing in the motion about W-8 feeling intimidated, or any explanation for why she wouldn't tell the truth in Sybrina's presence. Nor is there any mention of Sybrina crying.

Again, even if W-8 felt intimidated, there has to be intent for the tampering statute to apply. So far, I don't know that W-8 has said anything to suggest that Sybrina intended to influence her.

I do think this matter needs more investigation.

Quote
What I don't understand is why BDLR when naming himself and the SAO officers didn't he make mention of Sybrina Fulton and perhaps other members of the family or lawyers in that room.

Was he supposed to?

I think everyone in the room should be mentioned. But I don't know if that is customary, of if there any written rules or guidelines covering that.

Quote
IIRC, W8 was in Jacksonville for 2 days, Aug 2 and 3. 

August FDLE reports.

Two FDLE agents picked up W-8 about 10:45 AM on 8/2, and took her to the airport (p. 1). A third agent met her at the airport about 3:50 PM on 8/3 (p. 2).

Offline Kyreth

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 165
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness #8, Thread II
« Reply #22 on: May 15, 2013, 02:49:32 PM »
W-8 didn't actually lie to BDLR. He is conceding that she did rather than acknowledge his own sloppiness.

During deposition, W-8 admitted that she lied to BDLR and said it was because Sybrina Fulton was sitting next to her during that interview.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness #8, Thread II
« Reply #23 on: May 15, 2013, 04:10:18 PM »
W-8 didn't actually lie to BDLR. He is conceding that she did rather than acknowledge his own sloppiness.

Of course she lied to him. Because of BLDR's sloppy questioning, she my not have provably committed perjury, even assuming materiality,  but she knew he was asking if she went to the hospital, and she affirmed that she did.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness #8, Thread II
« Reply #24 on: May 15, 2013, 08:52:37 PM »
W-8 told de la Rionda that she intended to go to the wake or the funeral, and missed it because she 'didn't feel good' (17:40-46). It seems she never had such an intention, because she didn't want to see Trayvon's body. Both de la Rionda and Don West mentioned that in the 4/30/13 hearing (2:26:25-58). So, point conceded. W-8 lied in her official interview with de la Rionda.

That W-8 talked about Sybrina crying was mentioned by West in the same hearing (1:25:45-26:16).

Because of BLDR's sloppy questioning, she my not have provably committed perjury, even assuming materiality

I think she would also have a recantation defense.

Fla. Stat. § 837.07
« Last Edit: May 15, 2013, 08:58:35 PM by nomatter_nevermind »

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness #8, Thread II
« Reply #25 on: May 15, 2013, 11:13:41 PM »
It seems she never had such an intention, because she didn't want to see Trayvon's body.

That's the excuse she gave. I see no particular reason to assume that was the real reason. If she, or someone advising her, were making up an excuse designed to elicit sympathy, that's the kind of excuse they'd come up with. It's like Fulton taking the "letter" out of a bible. She couldn't take it out of the bible at home, and carry it to the deposition in in her purse?

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness #8, Thread II
« Reply #26 on: May 15, 2013, 11:26:52 PM »
I think she would also have a recantation defense.

The details of why she came clean are sufficiently murky that that's, at best, unknowable. If the prosecutors asked her to produce the hospital records, and she then confessed, she wouldn't qualify, since at that point it would be manifest that the false statement would be exposed. Shellie Zimmerman has, in my opinion, a much stronger case for a recantation defense, but so far, I haven't seen any indication it's being considered.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness #8, Thread II
« Reply #27 on: May 15, 2013, 11:27:21 PM »
That's the excuse she gave. I see no particular reason to assume that was the real reason.

OK, poor wording on my part. The point is that she admitted that the reason she gave de la Rionda was false.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness #8, Thread II
« Reply #28 on: May 15, 2013, 11:28:39 PM »
OK, poor wording on my part. The point is that she admitted that the reason she gave de la Rionda was false.

I didn't mean to get after you. It's just a point I wanted to make, and you gave me the chance.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness #8, Thread II
« Reply #29 on: May 15, 2013, 11:40:18 PM »
If the prosecutors asked her to produce the hospital records, and she then confessed, she wouldn't qualify, since at that point it would be manifest that the false statement would be exposed.

Quote
Recantation shall be a defense to any prosecution for perjury or false statement only if the person making the false statement admits such statement to be false in the same continuous proceeding or matter, and:
(1) The false statement has not substantially affected the proceeding; or
(2) Such admission is made before it has become manifest that such false statement has been or will be exposed.

My emphasis.

MJW
Quote
Shellie Zimmerman has, in my opinion, a much stronger case for a recantation defense

Clearly her recantation wasn't timely. As for manifest prospect of exposure, I haven't paid enough attention to the case to have an opinion. (If you want to argue either point, I would suggest doing it on the thread for that case.)

 

Site Meter
click
tracking